Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R Cady

Publications and source records attributed to R Cady.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Eletriptan in the early treatment of acute migraine: influence of pain intensity and time of dosing.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of early treatment of a single migraine attack, when headache pain was mild, with two doses (20 mg and 40 mg) of eletriptan. Patients (N = 613; female 79%; mean age 39 years) meeting International Headache Society criteria for migraine were encouraged, but not required, to utilize early treatment, thus providing an opportunity to assess the relative contribution to efficacy of pain severity and timing of dose. For the total patient sample (mild-to-severe headaches), 2-h pain-free rates were significantly higher than placebo (22%) on both eletriptan 20 mg (35%; P < 0.01) and eletriptan 40 mg (47%; P < 0.0001). For the cohort of patients who treated their headache when the pain intensity was mild, the 2-h pain-free rate on eletriptan 40 mg was 68% compared with 25% on placebo (P < 0.0001). Pain intensity at the time of taking eletriptan appeared to influence outcome more than the timing of the dose relative to headache onset. Eletriptan was well-tolerated, with adverse event rates similar to placebo when mild headaches were treated.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6.

BACKGROUND: Migraine and other severe headaches can cause suffering and reduce functioning and productivity. Patients are the best source of information about such impact. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new short form (HIT-6) for assessing the impact of headaches that has broad content coverage but is brief as well as reliable and valid enough to use in screening and monitoring patients in clinical research and practice. METHODS: HIT-6 items were selected from an existing item pool of 54 items and from 35 items suggested by clinicians. Items were selected and modified based on content validity, item response theory (IRT) information functions, item internal consistency, distributions of scores, clinical validity, and linguistic analyses. The HIT-6 was evaluated in an Internet-based survey of headache sufferers (n = 1103) who were members of America Online (AOL). After 14 days, 540 participated in a follow-up survey. RESULTS: HIT-6 covers six content categories represented in widely used surveys of headache impact. Internal consistency, alternate forms, and test-retest reliability estimates of HIT-6 were 0.89, 0.90, and 0.80, respectively. Individual patient score confidence intervals (95%) of app. +/-5 were observed for 88% of all respondents. In tests of validity in discriminating across diagnostic and headache severity groups, relative validity (RV) coefficients of 0.82 and 1.00 were observed for HIT-6, in comparison with the Total Score. Patient-level classifications based in HIT-6 were accurate 88.7% of the time at the recommended cut-off score for a probability of migraine diagnosis. HIT-6 was responsive to self-reported changes in headache impact. CONCLUSIONS: The IRT model estimated for a 'pool' of items from widely used measures of headache impact was useful in constructing an efficient, reliable, and valid 'static' short form (HIT-6) for use in screening and monitoring patient outcomes.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

A study of the feasibility of Internet administration of a computerized health survey: the headache impact test (HIT).

BACKGROUND: Headache impact test (HIT) is a precise, practical tool that quantifies the impact of headache on respondents' lives. It is the first widely-available dynamic health assessment (DynHA). Applications of this brief, precise survey include population based screening for disabling headaches, tracking of individual patient scores over time, disease management programs and others. We use data from Internet HIT assessments during the fall of 2000 to (1) evaluate characteristics of respondents and assessments, (2) assess the utility of joint administration of HIT and the SF-8 Health Survey (SF-8) to screen for migraine and depression, and (3) explore associations between HIT scores and subsequent healthcare-related attitudes and behaviors. METHODS: We analyzed Internet HIT surveys completed between 9/1 and 11/30/2000 (n = 19,195). Subsamples include respondents who also completed (1) a 12-item Internet survey assessing severity, frequency, cause and management of headaches; (2) an e-mail survey measuring healthcare-related behaviors; (3) the SF-8; or (4) the website registration process, providing age and gender data. We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate HIT score differences associated with age, gender, headache severity or frequency, and healthcare-related behaviors and attitudes and chi2 tests to assess the prevalence and comorbidity of migraine and depression. RESULTS: Three-quarters of respondents achieved a precise HIT score in < or = 5 items. Most had moderate/severe headaches; 65% had headaches at least monthly. HIT scores were directly related to headache severity and frequency. Most respondents were females, with significantly higher HIT scores than males. Most HIT respondents were between ages 25 and 54 (HIT scores were higher for younger respondents). Sixty four percent screened positive for migraine; 20% for depression. Both conditions were more prevalent among females than males. Comorbid migraine and depression was 50% more prevalent among females and increased with age until age 50. Patients with worse headache impact were more likely to seek care, discuss headaches with their providers and find HIT useful. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to use Internet-based dynamic assessments to measure health status. These data complement previous results showing that HIT differentiates respondents according to headache characteristics (severity and frequency). HIT plus SF-8 yields a practical screen for migraine and depression in headache patients and may lead to more effective treatment for patients with these conditions. Preliminary findings suggest that the experience of taking HIT on the Internet may motivate headache patients to seek care and discuss headaches with their providers.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Clinical efficacy of frovatriptan: placebo-controlled studies.

OBJECTIVE: To confirm the clinical efficacy of frovatriptan 2.5 mg. BACKGROUND: Frovatriptan is a new 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)(1B/1D) receptor agonist being developed for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. Results from preclinical and clinical pharmacology studies showed frovatriptan to be a potent 5-HT(1B) receptor agonist with a long terminal elimination half-life (26 hours) and a broad therapeutic index. DESIGN: Three randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials, in a total of 2676 patients, were performed to confirm the clinical efficacy of frovatriptan 2.5 mg for the acute treatment of migraine. RESULTS: In all three studies, headache response 2 hours after frovatriptan dosing was significantly greater than that seen with placebo (P < or = .001) with approximately a two-fold measure of effect over placebo for headache response at 2 and 4 hours postdosing. Time to headache response occurred within 1.5 hours in a substantial proportion of patients. The incidence of 24-hour headache recurrence with frovatriptan was low (10% to 25%). Frovatriptan therapy also was associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Frovatriptan represents a consistently effective acute treatment for migraine and accompanying symptoms.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Long-term efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan wafers in migraine.

CONTEXT: Rizatriptan is a selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine. It is available in a unique wafer formulation that dissolves rapidly in the mouth and can be taken without liquids, thereby offering patients a very convenient way to take treatment. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term efficacy of rizatriptan 10-mg and 5-mg wafers in migraineurs. SETTING: 19 headache clinics in 5 countries. PATIENTS: 458 patients diagnosed with migraine according to International Headache Society criteria. DESIGN: 6-month, open-label, extension, which followed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments for moderate or severe migraines: rizatriptan 10-mg wafer, rizatriptan 5-mg wafer, or "standard care" (usual migraine treatment -- eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], analgesics, other triptans). Patients randomized to rizatriptan were blinded to the dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Headache severity (none, mild, moderate, severe) and adverse events were recorded on a diary card. RESULTS: 181 patients treated 3393 attacks with rizatriptan 10-mg wafer, 191 treated 3254 attacks with rizatriptan 5-mg wafer, and 86 treated 1582 attacks with standard care. The median number of treated attacks per patient was 16 for rizatriptan 10-mg wafer, 13 for rizatriptan 5-mg wafer, and 14 for standard care. The median patient on rizatriptan 10-mg wafer reported pain relief at 2 hours (reduction of headache from moderate or severe at baseline to mild or none) in 82% of attacks, vs 73% of attacks for standard care (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] = 1.63 [1.14, 2.34], P <.01) and 72% of attacks for rizatriptan 5-mg wafer (OR [95% CI] = 1.60 [1.23, 2.08], P <.001). The median patient on rizatriptan 10-mg wafer was pain free at 2 hours in 46% of attacks, vs 30% of attacks for standard care (OR [95% CI] = 1.50 [1.06, 2.12], P <.05) and 25% of attacks for rizatriptan 5-mg wafer (OR [95% CI] = 1.93 [1.50, 2.49], P <.001). All treatments were generally well tolerated. Compared with standard care, rizatriptan 5-mg wafer was associated with fewer specific adverse events of asthenia/fatigue, back pain, nausea, pharyngeal discomfort, upper respiratory infection, and vomiting (P values <.05), and, compared with rizatriptan 10-mg wafer, fewer overall drug-related adverse events (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rizatriptan 10-mg wafer was more effective than standard care and rizatriptan 5-mg wafer for treating intermittent moderate or severe migraine attacks occurring over periods of up to 6 months. Rizatriptan wafers were well tolerated.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Sumatriptan nasal spray and cognitive function during migraine: results of an open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine measures of cognitive function during acute migraine, before and after treatment with sumatriptan nasal spray, 20 mg. BACKGROUND: Migraineurs frequently report symptoms of cognitive impairment during migraine. The efficacy of sumatriptan for treatment of migraine-related cognitive impairment is undocumented. METHODS: This open-label, single-attack study of 28 subjects used the Headache Care Center-Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics, a computerized neuropsychological assessment battery, to measure cognitive function under three patient conditions: migraine-free, untreated migraine, and following sumatriptan (primary outcome). Headache response and pain-free response, percent effectiveness, and clinical disability were measured. RESULTS: Cognitive function (simple reaction time, sustained attention/concentration, working memory, visual-spatial processing) and alertness/fatigue were adversely affected during migraine compared with migraine-free performance (P<.05), and rapidly restored following sumatriptan nasal spray, 20 mg (P<.05). Headache and pain-free response were 86% and 68%, respectively, at 135 minutes postdose. Changes in migraine pain severity, clinical disability, and percent effectiveness following treatment with sumatriptan nasal spray, 20 mg, were significantly correlated with cognitive function measures across all subtests (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sumatriptan nasal spray, 20 mg, restored migraine-related cognitive function and clinical disability.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

Comparative study of a combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen to sumatriptan succinate for the treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine, with or without aura, when taken at the first sign of an attack. BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved sumatriptan succinate and the combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen for the treatment of migraine. As part of the stratified treatment of migraine, those patients whose headaches are mild or moderate may benefit from nontriptan medications. Additionally, early treatment of acute migraine before the headache has become moderate or severe may improve response to treatment. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate in the early stages of a single migraine attack. Patients diagnosed with migraine, with or without aura, as defined by the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria were enrolled. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the study. Data for efficacy were available for 126 patients; safety data were available for 128 patients. No statistically significant difference between the two active agents in the patient's response to treatment was demonstrated. Headache recurrence was not significantly different over the 24-hour evaluation period for those patients responding in the first 4 hours. In those with headache recurrence, it was statistically significantly more severe in those patients treated with sumatriptan succinate. Improvement in functional disability was, in general, better among those treated with isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen. Global analysis of efficacy was similar in the two active groups. Patients treated with sumatriptan succinate were somewhat more likely to have adverse effects than the isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen group. CONCLUSIONS: Both isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate are safe and effective when used early in the treatment of an acute migraine. Several parameters suggest that isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen may have a slight advantage compared with sumatriptan succinate in the early treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2001

Workplace productivity. A review of the impact of migraine and its treatment.

Migraine is a common disorder characterised by recurrent episodes of disability. Despite the high prevalence of migraine, data have been lacking on its impact in a working population. The advent of new therapies has stimulated interest in this area, and evidence is now available that documents the substantial impact of migraine on workplace productivity and the likelihood of untreated migraine leading to unemployment or underemployment for the patient. This paper reviews current findings of both observational and interventional studies about the impact of migraine on productivity and employment. When considered in the light of migraine demographics, the high prevalence of migraine, and its low consultation and treatment rates, this evidence indicates that improved screening and treatment for this common condition could have a substantial impact on worker productivity and on patient well-being.

Cost of Illness↗
PubMed2000

Evaluation of migraineurs' preferences for naratriptan over conventional first-line agents.

OBJECTIVE: To assess patient satisfaction with and preference for naratriptan hydrochloride therapy over previous "nontriptan" therapy for migraines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open-label study conducted at 15 primary care clinics. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-three adults meeting International Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine who were not using triptans as first-line therapy for migraines were enrolled; 115 completed the study. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME ASSESSMENTS: At baseline, satisfaction with current migraine therapy was assessed. Patients were provided with naratriptan hydrochloride, 2.5 mg, to treat 3 migraines and diaries to record headache symptoms and response to treatment. After treating 3 migraines, satisfaction with naratriptan therapy and preference for either previous or naratriptan therapy were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-nine (62%) of 143 patients had previous exposure to triptans, with lack of prescribing (55%) as the primary reason for not continuing their use as first-line therapy. Medications used for first-line therapy included simple analgesics (59%), combination products (46%), and narcotics (13%). After treating 3 migraines with naratriptan, satisfaction with migraine therapy increased from 47% to 75%. Sixty-three percent of patients preferred naratriptan therapy over their previous nontriptan therapy, 27% preferred their previous therapy, and 10% had no preference. The main reasons for preference for naratriptan therapy were "relieves pain effectively" (86%) and "restores ability to function/perform task" (81%). CONCLUSION: Naratriptan for first-line migraine therapy was preferred by most patients over previous nontriptan therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Prevention of migraine during prodrome with naratriptan.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of naratriptan in preventing migraine headache when administered during prodrome. PROCEDURES: Baseline phase: patients recorded prodrome symptoms and time of onset, time when patient knew that headache was inevitable, time of onset and severity of headache. Treatment phase: patients given naratriptan 2.5 mg to take at the time they knew headache was inevitable. Patients recorded prodrome symptoms and time of onset, time they knew headache was inevitable, time naratriptan administered, time of onset and severity of any headache. Patients treated three prodromes separated by at least 48 h. FINDINGS: Twenty patients completed both phases. During baseline phase, 59 prodromes were reported and all were followed by headache. Severity of headache: 5% mild, 51% moderate, 44% severe. During treatment phase, 63 prodromes were reported. Of these, 38/63 (60%) were not followed by headache. Among headaches that occurred, the majority occurred within 2 h of naratriptan administration, suggesting that naratriptan is more effective in preventing headache if taken early in prodrome. Severity of 25 headaches: 44% mild, 24% moderate, 32% severe. CONCLUSIONS: Naratriptan 2.5 mg appears to prevent migraine headache when given early in prodrome. If headache occurs, severity appears to be reduced.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

A pilot study to measure cognitive efficiency during migraine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The measurement of cognitive efficiency during migraine has produced conflicting results primarily due to the types of tests used. The objectives of this pilot study were two-fold: to measure cognitive efficiency during migraine, compared to a migraine-free period, and to evaluate the effects of therapy with a 5-HT1 agonist (sumatriptan injection, 6 mg) on the cognitive efficiency of migraineurs during a migraine. METHOD: The Headache Care Center-Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics was administered to 10 migraineurs, three times without a migraine, once during a migraine, and three times after administration of sumatriptan injection (6 mg). RESULTS: The results demonstrated a significant drop in cognitive efficiency during migraine and recovery 15 minutes after therapeutic injection. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study is the first to document a significant drop in cognitive functioning during migraine and recovery after administration of a migraine-specific medication.

Cognition↗
PubMed1996

Analgesic rebound headache in clinical practice: data from a physician survey.

BACKGROUND: Frequent, excessive use of over-the-counter or prescription analgesics may lead to analgesic rebound headache. Little is known about the magnitude of the health problem posed by analgesic rebound headache, its epidemiology, the characteristics of analgesic rebound headache sufferers, or about physicians' approaches to treatment. METHODS: Four hundred seventy-three practitioners, who had previously expressed an interest in the treatment of headache, were mailed a questionnaire designed to capture information about the frequency and management of analgesic rebound headache and about the characteristics of analgesic rebound headache sufferers. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 174 practitioners (37%) from 40 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. More than 40% of respondents indicated that analgesic rebound headache was present in at least 20% of their patients. On average, the physicians reported that 73% of patients with analgesic rebound headache were women. Analgesic rebound headache was most likely to occur in patients aged 31 to 40 years. No one analgesic was consistently identified as causative, although acetaminophen, butalbital + aspirin + caffeine, and aspirin were commonly used by patients. Eighty percent of respondents indicated that depression was commonly observed in analgesic rebound headache sufferers; 77% indicated that physical conditions (especially gastrointestinal symptoms) were commonly observed. A variety of therapeutic strategies, including pharmacotherapy, were used in the management of analgesic rebound headache. CONCLUSION: Analgesic rebound headache was recognized as a distinct entity and a substantive component in more than 40% of the practices of 174 surveyed practitioners. General practitioners, who see a wide variety of patient types with a spectrum of complaints, need to be able to diagnose analgesic rebound headache by taking a good history.

Adult↗